Nuclear confusion

Telegraph View: More clarity is needed over the Government's plans for
more power stations.

They cannot yet be considered cracks, but one or two hairline fractures have started to appear in the new coalition Government, despite the best endeavours of its leaders to minimise points of conflict. The most pronounced involves the future source of Britain's energy supply.

This matters. It took many years of dithering before the last Labour government eventually revived the nuclear power programme. Without such a programme, there is a grave risk of energy shortages in the medium term. We will also be vulnerable to sudden disruption of oil and gas supplies from the Middle East or Russia, for reasons either of political instability or blackmail. The Conservatives in opposition were emphatic that these dangers must be averted and in their election manifesto proposed 10 new nuclear power stations in the next 20 years (though without public subsidy), ensuring security of supply and a zero-carbon source of electricity.

So the appointment of Chris Huhne to take charge of the Department of Energy and Climate Change came as something of a surprise. Mr Huhne, a Liberal Democrat, has made no secret of his dislike for nuclear power, an antipathy shared by many in his party. The coalition's draft agreement allows a plan for more power stations to be brought before Parliament, but lets the Lib Dems speak against it and then to abstain in a vote. This is being hailed as an example of how previously implacable differences can be bridged in the interests of stable government. But it has unknowable consequences. Decisions about investment in nuclear power need to be made this year, yet the coalition risks reintroducing the uncertainty that had previously been removed. The new ministry has promised to govern in the national interest. In which case, this lack of clarity cannot be sustained for long.